Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship)

Closed as inadmissible. While the accusation may be reasonable, per Commons:Administrators/De-adminship a prior discussion is required that indicates some consensus for adminship removal. The ANU discussion Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Kallerna cannot be seens as any developing censusus yet, so the deadmin request is invalid. --Krd 14:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kallerna (de-adminship)

Vote

Kallerna (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (Activity: Talk Commons DR)

Scheduled to end: 00:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Regular voters on FPC will know the tone of Karelj’s oppose votes – often, they’re out-of-line, but also rude and disrespectful and include “no reason for FP nomination” (or slightly paraphrased).

November 23 was no different. There was an increase in ICM photos on FPC, which was more of a temporary trend, but nonetheless, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg was like any FP nom – all until Karelj opposed with the statement, “Just low quality images of some wooden pieces: There is no any reasonon [sic] for FP nomination here.”, which was rather disparaging towards W.carter at best. Since this was not the first time Karelj had been told about their civility, including a formal warning and a previous ANU discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 70#User:Karelj at FPC, A.Savin decided to take action by blocking Karelj for 3 days.

On November 25, Kallerna came out of the blue and unblocked Karelj with no discussion or no warning, with the unblock comment "Groundless block [...] Silencing user [sic] who do not agree with you?" (I am not sure what the [...] contains, since it has now been revision deleted). They did eventually engage with A.Savin but the discussion rendered useless. This also went against Commons:Blocking policy

This might not seem like much, but there are two things to note: a) A.Savin did not vote nor touch the FP nom; b) Kallerna was one of only three users who opposed in a sea of over 20 support votes (with the other two oppose voters being Milseberg and unsurprisingly, Karelj). When asked about their actions, it seems they have done everything to dodge answering my and A.Savin’s questions, both on A.Savin’s talk page and on the latest ANU thread.

On Nov 28, 08:39 (UTC), I made it absolutely crystal clear to Kallerna that if they continue to not respond or dodge our [my and A.Savin’s] questions by Dec 2, I would start a desysop nomination (which was supported by A.Savin); their last edit was on 12:32 (UTC) the same day (and it’s more likely they read my comment because I pinged Kallerna). However, it’s December 2 today and they have yet to respond, hence this desysop nom. Sysops should be held accountable for their actions, and snarkily dodging it is very unsysop-like behaviour.

Ultimately, while Kallerna might be a great photographer, their recent actions hit the nail in the coffin for being a sysop. If a sysop cannot hold themselves accountable for their actions, it proves they are not credible to hold the mop and be a part of the sysop team.

TLDR:

Karelj made uncivil comments on FPC.
A.Savin blocked Karelj for 3 days for their incivility.
Kallerna unblocked Karelj without any discussion accusing A.Savin of bias when in fact A.Savin had not voted nor touched the FP nom (while Kallerna was one of three oppose voters), against Commons:Blocking policy.
Discussion on A.Savin’s talk page did not go anywhere.
When questioned, Kallerna did not answer on-topic.
Gave a deadline for them to answer (Dec 2); Kallerna did not answer before then.

(apologies in advance if I've messed up the formatting – it's my first time creating such a nom)

--SHB2000 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes

Remove as nominator. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove -- it's insane that it has to come as far after a relatively minor issue (not a block, but lifting an only 3 days block, though out of procedure), I mean hey we all make mistakes sometimes... But Kallerna's behaviour in this matter is really far below of everything one would consider becoming of a long-term sysop, and I'm voting here for removal simply because I think Kallerna is, while undoubtedly being a good photographer, a poor sysop; simple as is. Commons needs more sysops anytime, yes, but good and dedicated ones. Thanks SHB2000, --A.Savin 01:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep though Kallerna's unblock is indeed inappropriate as regard to our policy "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so", it is yet again another administrative action made by A.Savin which is the cause of conflict and additional waste of time of every body. A.Savin is particularly good at pushing others to overreact. Here they blocked someone for this comment [1], which if you forget the spelling mistake for "reasonon" seems ridiculous. And for whose who will claims that the blocked user has potentially an history of harsh comments, and that they have been warned for that,.... so then that's quite easy... just block them when they indeed do one of those harsh comments.... Just another admisnistrative action made by A.Savin made at the wrong time and/or with the wrong rationale, that should be them being desysopped, see also [2]. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Comment For posterity's sake, the specific discussion at COM:ANU involving Kallerna can be found at this permalink. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for linking the permalink :-). --SHB2000 (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Can someone explain what the evidence for a conflict of interest is since I haven't been following along and it's not really clear in SHB2000's original message? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You probably want an explanation from someone who is not me nor A.Savin, but Kallerna unblocked Karelj accusing A.Savin of silencing an opinion they don't like when A.Savin wasn't involved at all in the discussion, but Kallerna was on the same boat as Karelj. Sorry if my nomination was unclear (I'll admit it's a bit rushed). --SHB2000 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the explanation. But just to needlessly play devils advocate, doesn't blocking someone inherently silence their opinion or am I missing something about how blocks work? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was less about Karel's opinion and more so about their incivility, and Kallerna not following the procedures on Commons:Blocking policy. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't we have a village pump discussion first, and, if there is consensus, open this page?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would the ANU discussion not suffice? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought we need a formal close but may be it is ok like this, let us see whether anyone strongly objects to starting this request. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want my opinion, blocking is supposed to be used in cases of vandalism or bots or other such things, if it is an active user it should be a well documented graduated response. I think the default position should be to unblock not to block. I have seen what happens in some wiki's when the blockers have lost sight of the action of last resort, they become drunk on power. Deathmolor (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]